Action, Criticism & Theory for Music Education The refereed journal of the Volume 6, No. 1 April 2007 Thomas A. Regelski, Editor Wayne Bowman, Associate Editor Music Education and Deliberative Democracy Stephan Bladh Marja Heimonen © Stephan Bladh, Marja Heimonen 2007 All rights reserved. ISSN 1545-4517 The content of this article is the sole responsibility of the author. The ACT Journal and the Mayday Group are not liable for any legal actions that may arise involving the article's content, including, but not limited to, copyright infringement. For further information, please point your Web Browser to http://act.maydaygroup.org Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education Electronic Article 2 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Music Education and Deliberative Democracy Stephan Bladh, Malmö Academy of Music, University of Lund, Sweden Marja Heimonen, Sibelius Academy, Helsinki, Finland The influence of democracy and law on music education in Sweden and Finland, and the potential for music education as training in democracy, are discussed in this paper. The latter consideration can be instructive regardless of the nation, or its laws and paradigms of music education.1 The theoretical background is based on Jürgen Habermas’ ideas on communicative action and deliberative democracy.2 We stress the importance of communicative processes of music education and deliberative democracy (or deliberative politics), which refers to processes of argumentation in which all arguments are considered and the best ones succeed. Habermas emphasizes the right of everyone to take part in creating norms and values in society. This is possible in “practical discourse” through which joint action can be achieved without force or manipulation. It is not only cognitive meanings but also ethical norms and artistic values that are created through this process. The perspective of deliberative democracy is applied to music education in Sweden and Finland. We begin by examining the goals and aims described in the educational legislation and curricula governing compulsory education (i.e. in comprehensive and upper- secondary schools). One of the basic terms and educational aims of schooling is communication. However, our interest is not confined to compulsory music education, and we also examine the educational legislation and curricula governing voluntary music education offered by music and arts schools.3 We conclude our essay by suggesting that compulsory and voluntary music education should be brought closer together – ideologically and organisationally – under the umbrella of educating in music, art, and deliberative democracy. The music teacher’s role would thus be broadened and strengthened in the school organisation and in the curricula. By Bladh, S., Heimonen, M. (2007) ” Music Education and Deliberative Democracy” Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 6/1: http://www.maydaygroup.org/ACT/v6n1/Bladh_Heimonen6_1.pdf Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education Electronic Article 3 ______________________________________________________________________________________ emphasising the process of open communication – verbal and musical – rather than dictating what is “right” or “wrong,” music teachers can advance music, music learning, and deliberative democracy. DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY According to Habermas, society is divided into two parts, the “lifeworld” (Lebenswelt) and the “system” (Systemwelt). On the one hand, then, it is conceived of from the actor’s perspective as the “lifeworld” of a certain group – the group context in which human beings create their identity, norms, and values in terms of legality and morality. Habermas’ ideas are similar in this regard to the theoretical foundations of symbolic interactionism. Through communicative rationality the aim is to reach greater consensus and understanding in and of the lifeworld. As will be discussed more fully below, communicative rationality aims to reach understanding in discourse between equals and forms the basis for deliberative democracy. On the other hand, from the observer’s perspective, society is conceived of as a “system of actions”.4 Through strategic rationality, then, society as a ‘system’ is steered, even manipulated, by money, power, authority, bureaucracy, and political parties. Strategic rationality aims, then, at the effectiveness of the system and it is thus success-oriented, not understanding-oriented. Habermas stresses the importance and the need for communicative rationality, although he notes that every theory of society restricted to communication theory has its limitations. He therefore proposes that societies should be thought of as both systems and lifeworlds. Historically, the system has developed out of the lifeworld.5 Some of Habermas’ ideas have their roots in Ancient Greece. According to Aristotle, for instance, the individual attains his or her proper perfection in a society (i.e. the Ancient Greek city state or polis), and the “good life” is paramount. Politics was considered to be the doctrine of the good life; it was considered as a practical science and, in the final analysis, was directed to the cultivation of character.6 Aristotle’s ideas on politics resemble Habermas’ belief in the need to reach understanding through communication in a state that is truly guided by its citizens. Habermas’ idea of deliberative democracy, then, involves processes of argumentation that are premised on communicative rationality. The underlying purpose of communicative rationality is reaching understanding in order to co-ordinate actions, and thus its basic goal is in reaching agreement. Bladh, S., Heimonen, M. (2007) ” Music Education and Deliberative Democracy” Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 6/1: http://www.maydaygroup.org/ACT/v6n1/Bladh_Heimonen6_1.pdf Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education Electronic Article 4 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Habermas also explores the question of the legitimacy of law and politics. A tension and paradox between politics and law exists in deliberative democracies because citizens (the folk or demos) or their representatives have the right to stipulate legal regulations, whereas the law protects citizens’ rights against state intervention. In other words, political power is both grounded on and restricted by law. Communicative rationality is the basis of deliberative democracy for Habermas: all citizens have the right to take part in creating norms in interaction with other members of society. The procedural character of communicative rationality involves the right of every human being to create norms and values through practical discourses. Practical discourses stress the importance of empirical knowledge, and are understood as reflective forms of communication situated in a lifeworld.7 Deliberative democracy reduces the potential for alienation between individuals and the political authorities that is increasing in modern democratic states. In many respects, Habermas’ discourse theory in relation to the democratic constitutional state is an attempt to apply his theory of communicative action. In contrast to strategic action that aims at efficacy of the system, communicative action instead aims at reaching understanding (consensus) about the system and its impact on lifeworlds.8 Deliberative democracy stems from interaction between liberal commitments to basic human, civil, and political rights, according to political scientist and philosopher Seyla Benhabib. She argues that there is no presumption that moral and political discourses produce a normative consensus. Hostility between different groups in a society may sometimes grow so intense that the tensions find outlets other than dialogue. In these circumstances, a deliberative or discursive model can be criticised as naïve, since even the law cannot always control these hostilities. However, she argues, even if all conflicts were not resolvable through discourse, public debate would nevertheless enhance the civic virtues of democratic citizenship in terms of cultivating the habits of public reasoning and argumentation.9 Habermas’ theory of communicative action includes the concept of intentionality. In order to understand an action, one has to interpret the actor’s intention – the aims and meanings of the action for the actor. Habermas emphasizes the underlying meanings of actions, per se, rather than focussing on simple behaviours. He believes that the rationality of action cannot be separated from action itself and, moreover, that both socialisation and the creation of identity depend on the intersubjectivity of communicative action. Habermas’ theory of communicative action is intertwined with his analysis of the symbolic structures of Bladh, S., Heimonen, M. (2007) ” Music Education and Deliberative Democracy” Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 6/1: http://www.maydaygroup.org/ACT/v6n1/Bladh_Heimonen6_1.pdf Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education Electronic Article 5 ______________________________________________________________________________________ the lifeworld. In traditional social theory, these structures have typically been called culture, society, and person, but Habermas regards these as purely analytical distinctions. For him, these lifeworld structures constantly interact in providing a continuous resource for the individual.10 Culture, in this sense, should be understood as only one aspect